Tuesday, 4 February 2014

I have been contemplating, whilst watching a Christopher Hitchens debate, if I had to choose a creator-model for the universe - upon fear of death - what would be it's general framework?

I immediately default to the anti-theist, go-to, all-purpose, but uncaring omnipotentence - the deity.

So the creator, from here-on refered to as "god", creates the universe - as described by science, but has a roadmap of development for humanity, combined with a universe based on a common language, science (more accurately, mathematics) which is embedded in our DNA and within the interactions described by the Standard and Quantum models in physics.

Within this framework of human development, of which god no longer has control, or even care, evolution happens, the fossil record is laid, and eventually, humans become self-aware.

What an interesting time to be a fly on the wall! Just from baby books alone, I can imagine the first two questions; Who am I, and where did I come from?

Having had the millions of years of evolution, understanding about the world around them would have been superficial. Once awareness of self happens, then they start thinking about how other components of the world around them, forming primitive mans world view.

They see a vicious world, where survival - more often than not - depends upon having dominion over another creature. So why should man be different? He is top of the ladder, as far as evolution goes, but understanding is limited, and conclusions are jumped to.

I could go on, and talk about how self-awareness started to affect people in differing ways. The unscrupulous understood the value of the unknown, and exploited it. Perhaps god injected science into the universe to logically draw us away from the mythology and violence that has hampered our development thus far?

I do want you to see that the god that I have described - a god I don't believe in - is independent of our development. Even if he does exist, look around - what has god done for us lately?

How many members of the traditional three monotheistic religions heap scorn on the newer (arbitrarily, let's say 200 years) religions and cults.

For their condemnation alone, they will hear no complaint from I, as the highlighting of religious hypocrisy is one of my sports. However, it is the hypocrisy surrounding the ridicule of events in Mormonsism, or Scientology - to use but two newer belief systems - considering the mythology contained within their own religious text, that galls me - to say the least.

Why is it that the passage of time seems to make unbelievable events more believable, in some peoples eyes?

Is the thought of the events surrounding Moses and the burning book anymore credible than Joseph Smith and the golden plates? I could draw references from both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Koran, that are just as ridiculous as events surrounding the newer religions - from a perspective of logic alone.

It would appear that the further an event is in history, the less tangible evidence for the event, and the lack of criticism of the event - at the time, or soon after - contribute to the continued belief in such events.

Certainly, one good symptom of globalisation is the unlikelyhood of another flavour of mass delusion taking hold. Granted there are cults of personality that have similar issues, and mass delusion could be forced - but that might do for another musing.